Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

you want a quick FOV assess?

  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 quilty

quilty

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 5,530
  • Joined: 07 Oct 2019
  • Loc: 52N8E

Posted 16 April 2025 - 10:06 AM

Here it is.

Just multiply the ep's fl with its AFOV and divide by 1.000. This yields the angular FOV size for a scope with 1 m fl.

Example: ES 62° 26 mm yields 1.612, say 1.61° in an 1 m fl scope. A 40 mm Plössl with 40° AFOV yields 1.600 say 1.6° so no larger FOV here.
A 24 mm ES 68° is no help neither, 1.62°
Division by 1k is a no brainer and the multiplication can be done without any help, too.
  • therealdmt and The Cloud Gazer like this

#2 Starman1

Starman1

    Stargeezer

  • *****
  • Posts: 69,592
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 16 April 2025 - 04:26 PM

Here it is.

Just multiply the ep's fl with its AFOV and divide by 1.000. This yields the angular FOV size for a scope with 1 m fl.

Example: ES 62° 26 mm yields 1.612, say 1.61° in an 1 m fl scope. A 40 mm Plössl with 40° AFOV yields 1.600 say 1.6° so no larger FOV here.
A 24 mm ES 68° is no help neither, 1.62°
Division by 1k is a no brainer and the multiplication can be done without any help, too.

Alas, it tends to overstate some TFOVs and be close on others.
This is because true fields are directly related to field stops. For example, field stops in 24mm 1.25" eyepieces range from 26.9 to 28.0mm and the 28.0mm eyepiece has the same apparent field as the 26.9mm field stop, yet a true field 4.1% wider.

A 40mm 43° Tele Vue Plossl has exactly the same true field as their 24mm 68°, yet multiplying the numbers suggests the 40mm is 5.4% wider.

Distortion changes the amount of true field in an eyepiece, and disortio differs by sometimes large amounts betwee eyepieces, making the simple magnifier possibly useful if comparing eyepieces far apart in focal length, but not very useful for seeking a larger true field. For that, look at the field stops.

Edited by Starman1, 16 April 2025 - 04:26 PM.

  • Jon Isaacs, T1R2 and eblanken like this

#3 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 119,893
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 16 April 2025 - 08:26 PM

Here it is.

Just multiply the ep's fl with its AFOV and divide by 1.000. This yields the angular FOV size for a scope with 1 m fl.

Example: ES 62° 26 mm yields 1.612, say 1.61° in an 1 m fl scope. A 40 mm Plössl with 40° AFOV yields 1.600 say 1.6° so no larger FOV here.
A 24 mm ES 68° is no help neither, 1.62°
Division by 1k is a no brainer and the multiplication can be done without any help, too.

 

If you just divide by the telescope's focal length then you have 

 

TFoV = AFoV / Mag  

 

One is likely to need a calculator to do AFoV x Focal length so dividing by the scopes focal length provides an estimate of the actual TFoV, keeping in mind, Don's comments.

 

Jon



#4 Sandy Swede

Sandy Swede

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,230
  • Joined: 23 Feb 2018
  • Loc: Delaware beaches

Posted 17 April 2025 - 08:58 AM

All well and good if you have a one meter scope, if not, you have to divide by its FL, correct?. So, using quilty's formula for my Panoptic 24mm with an AFoV of 68o and my 9.25" EdgeHD, then 24 x 68 = 1.632 / 2,350 = .69o TFoV.  Using the formula with which I am familiar: TFoV = (Eyepiece Field Stop Diameter / Scope Focal Length) x 57.3, then my result is 27 / 2,350) x 57.3 = .66o. Is this appropriate? Also, please check my math. Since the purpose of quilty's thread is to have a quick approximation, I have to state that a difference in TFoV of .03o is "no biggie." Now I have killed all of the brain cells quilty tried to save me. smile.gif

 

Bonus round: Why do we multiply by 57.3 in the above formula?



#5 KBHornblower

KBHornblower

    Mercury-Atlas

  • -----
  • Posts: 2,722
  • Joined: 01 Jul 2020
  • Loc: Falls Church, VA (Washington DC suburb)

Posted 17 April 2025 - 09:00 AM

Bonus round:  That is to convert from radians to degrees.


  • Jon Isaacs, CeleNoptic and eblanken like this

#6 Sandy Swede

Sandy Swede

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,230
  • Joined: 23 Feb 2018
  • Loc: Delaware beaches

Posted 18 April 2025 - 11:07 AM

Bonus round:  That is to convert from radians to degrees.


And the winner is KBHornblower.  Pi Radians converted to degrees = 180o (Pi Radians) / 3.1416 (Pi) = 57.3



#7 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 119,893
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 18 April 2025 - 01:24 PM

And the winner is KBHornblower.  Pi Radians converted to degrees = 180o (Pi Radians) / 3.1416 (Pi) = 57.3

 

57.3°/radian


  • johnfgibson likes this

#8 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 119,893
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 19 April 2025 - 09:27 AM

I should add that 180 degrees / Pi is approximately 57.295779513082320876798154814105 deg/rad but that the error in using 57.3 deg/rad is less than 0.01%, plenty good enough since none of the measurements are made to that level of accuracy.

 

Jon



#9 NinePlanets

NinePlanets

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,037
  • Joined: 12 Sep 2018
  • Loc: High and Dry

Posted 19 April 2025 - 09:42 AM

You can also simply record the time a roughly ~0 declination star centrally transits the AFOV and divide to get the true FOV.

 

ie: At 0 degrees declination 1 hour of RA = 15 degrees

20 min of RA = 5 degrees

4 min of RA = 1 degree

etc. ...

 

But is much faster to simply measure the field stop of the eyepiece (if you can get to it).


Edited by NinePlanets, 19 April 2025 - 09:43 AM.



CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics